you would have thought the romans would have learnt from past mistakes and the army would be better in terms of both tactics and equipment (which didnt seem to help the late empire)??
why was the roman army of the late emprie inferior to that in the early empire (1st century CE)
you would have thought the romans would have learnt from past mistakes and the army would be better in terms of both tactics and equipment (which didnt seem to help the late empire)??
QVID MELIVS ROMA?
Re: why was the roman army of the late emprie inferior to that in the early empire (1st century CE)
thanks to late roman-barbarian army. that "non romans" in roman army, were not able to use Gladius..so they did replace Gladius with Spatha.. more familiar to them.. the same for scutum, replaced by oval shields etc.. Pilum was replaced too.. etcc
hoi polloi
Re: why was the roman army of the late emprie inferior to that in the early empire (1st century CE)
you would have thought the romans would have learnt from past mistakes and the army would be better in terms of both tactics and equipment (which didnt seem to help the late empire)??One could sayedit: never mind that indirect pap.. it was not.
Rather the late Roman Empire was far more fragile than the earlier Roman Empire, which benefited form the luster of the far more robust Roman Republic which did the lion’s share of conquest.
IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites
'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'
But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.
Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.
Senator
Re: why was the roman army of the late emprie inferior to that in the early empire (1st century CE)
The power of the army depends on the power of the economy.
Rome was in economic downturn, and moreover the Romans lost their culture of fighting and wars, since they could afford to ask the so-called 'barbars' to fight for them...
That is why the Roman army was inferior. The Barbars would better take the whole of Rome's treasures, rather than get the small fees for protecting huge piles of gold
The Help of God, The Love of the People, The Strength of Denmark - Proud To See The Red Knight make this AAR Truly Epic!
Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Germanicæ
Royaume de France
My avatar is not there because of my religion, but because it looks like the first and last letters of my name put together in my Language (I do know what it means)
Re: why was the roman army of the late emprie inferior to that in the early empire (1st century CE)
it is true that by the 3rd C less than 1% of the army was roman, but that means nothing, you can romanize people
Civitate
Re: why was the roman army of the late emprie inferior to that in the early empire (1st century CE)
had endless discussions about this...use the search engine please.Originally Posted by lawnmower
The late army was in no way worse. it was improved in most respects from technology to command structure and it was highly efficient.
the barbarisation is a myth, nothing more, nothing less.
this is nonsense.thanks to late roman-barbarian army. that "non romans" in roman army, were not able to use Gladius..so they did replace Gladius with Spatha.. more familiar to them.. the same for scutum, replaced by oval shields etc.. Pilum was replaced too.. etcc
1st of all you can train people to use any weapon
2nd the spatha is a traditional Roman sword. the Germanics used short swords until they started to copy the spatha...
3rd pila were replaced by a variety of long range weapons which gave the whole infantry bigger fire power...
The Romans were not dumb and the Romans were not "barbarized". Anyone who studies the subject a bit closer will notice that the late army is a (highly efficient) development of earlier troops and NOT a step down. And don't bring in any 19th century authors now because any more recent serious academic research will support my points.
RESTITVTOR LIBERTATIS ET ROMANAE RELIGIONIS
MINERVAE ET SOLIS INVICTI DISCIPVLVS
formerly known as L.C.Cinna
Tiro
Re: why was the roman army of the late emprie inferior to that in the early empire (1st century CE)
I think most degenaration theories are discredited by now. The problem was not that the roman army became worse, but that the barbarians especially Germanics got better (weaponry, forming greater tribes usw.) Additionally there were to many crisises to manage for one emperor which resulted in frequent usurpation attempts.
Chidori
Re: why was the roman army of the late emprie inferior to that in the early empire (1st century CE)
How do you say... uh, ah yea: 'amen to that'.
Patronised by Voltaire le Philosophe
Therefore One hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful. Seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful. War is of vital importance to the state and should not be engaged carelessly... - Sun Tzu
Orochimaru & Aizen you must Die!! Bankai Dattebayo!!
Tiro
Re: why was the roman army of the late emprie inferior to that in the early empire (1st century CE)
The empire was built on a plunder economy.
While Rome expanded it's borders wealth and slaves flowed into the empire. When the expansion ended Rome went into a slow economic decline.
This decline was further offset by a huge transfer of taxes from the western half of the empire to the eastern half to counter the rising threat of the Persians who had recently conquered the Parthians.
I believe this was the cause of the decline in standards of the western empire's legions, while the eastern legions remained well equipped and trained.
Tasmanian Devil
Re: why was the roman army of the late emprie inferior to that in the early empire (1st century CE)
+ rep. The myth of the "barbarisation" of the late Roman Army dies hard. As does this fanboy obsession with the gladius. The fall of the Western Roman Empire was not a military collapse anyway, so the idea that the later Army was somehow inferior is totally wrong. As we've discussed here many, many times before - when the late Roman Army fought the invaders it beat them. The Empire collapsed around the Army from economic and politcal causes. The barbarians "won" by default, they barely managed to win any actual battles against the Roman Army in the whole century before the WRE fell.
Nonsense. There is no evidence that the training or equipment of the two Roman Armies differed at all. Both remained well equipped and trained. See above - the fall of the WRE was NOT a military collapse.
Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Gunthigg
"HISTORY VS THE DA VINCI CODE" - Facts vs Hype
"ARMARIUM MAGNUM" - Book Reviews on Ancient and Medieval History, Atheism and Philosophy
Under the patronage of Wilpuri. Proud patron of Ringeck.
Miles
Re: why was the roman army of the late emprie inferior to that in the early empire (1st century CE)
Just playing the devils advocate.
AFAIK The Franks rise to power rested on taking control of the Roman Loire army - or you could say that the early Frankish army was the former Roman Loire army!
This seems like "barbarisation" to me.
My point is that we know how the story ended.
When the dust settled there was no roman army in the west. So unless
all roman soldiers were clubbed to death by wolfskin wearing barbs or
maybe retired peacefully, they continued doing their job, serving the new administration as "barbarians".
This was otoh more a reaction to the dissolution of the empire than a cause.
If anything it was barbs becoming better not the romans losing military expertise.
Hmm...
Somebody should have told Gaiseric and his Vandals before they totally destroyed roman naval power in the western Med at Cartagena or when
they beat the East Roman army and navy at Cape Bon.
As it were the Vandals were recognised as a rulers on the territory they had taken by right of the sword from the Roman empire.
They managed fine in Spain and North Africa and the Huns also won a battle or two.
Agreed.
Marsilio Ficino, writing in 1492
"This century, like a golden age, has restored to light the liberal arts, which were almost extinct: grammar, poetry, rhetoric, painting, sculpture, architecture, music...this century appears to have perfected astrology."
QVID MELIVS ROMA?
Re: why was the roman army of the late emprie inferior to that in the early empire (1st century CE)
c'mon dude. late romans were not barbarized? that's nonsense
u know what "Foederati barbari" was?
then...
Codex Theodosianus VII.13.8: Voluntary recruitment was free to roman citizens and barbarians, on condition that they had to be "freemen"
Civitate
Re: why was the roman army of the late emprie inferior to that in the early empire (1st century CE)
I know about foederati. Actually I wrote a seminar research about the status of foederati a few years back.
Maybe we should define what you consider "late Romans"?
people talk of a decline of the Roman army during 3rd, 4th, 5th century, of barbarisation but please show me this level of barbarisation?
The first legal foederati we can trace safely are the Goths under Theodosius (although there were similarities to some earlier procedures) but these were not integrated into the army. When did this supposed barbarisation start? during the last 30 years of the west or in the 3rd century? what do you think?
You mentioned the equipment which changed and became more barbarised because the barbarians didn't know how to use Roman equipment.
Then tell me, why do all those changes take place during a time which fanboys consider the Roman army at its height, without "barbarians" filling its ranks? If they are barbarized, why do they switch from the gladius to a weapon which had been used by the Romans since republican times, the spatha? Why don't they switch to barbarian weapons?
The army developed new fighting tactics because of a new political and military situation (no they did not face more cavalry, so please don't bring up that argument). they improved their weapons, armour and command structure just like any military does and just like they've done numerous times before...
btw. the Romans got the gladius from Spain...I wonder why noone has argued yet that this is when the barbarization started...
(PS: even f this post may sound offensive this is not directed against you personally Davide. We just had this topic oh so often and every time some people come here who have seen some pics of cool segmentata and just post utter nonsense without bothering to read anything)
RESTITVTOR LIBERTATIS ET ROMANAE RELIGIONIS
MINERVAE ET SOLIS INVICTI DISCIPVLVS
formerly known as L.C.Cinna
Ecce Homo
Re: why was the roman army of the late emprie inferior to that in the early empire (1st century CE)
This one is new to me. I thought the spatha originated with conflicts between rome and celtic people. Essentially Rome copying celtic technology. And that the germanic peoples used a similar style sword as the celts. Not that the spatha migrated north...
Last edited by DisgruntledGoat; August 12, 2008 at 08:25 PM.
Tasmanian Devil
Re: why was the roman army of the late emprie inferior to that in the early empire (1st century CE)
What Cinna is referring to is the erroneous idea that the spatha was adopted by Roman infantry as part of this mythical "barbarisation" of the Army - it was thought that this was a sign of increasing Germanic troops in the army using a Germanic style sword over the old gladius.
In fact, as you say, the spatha had been adopted by the Romans from Celtic cavalry weapons and had long been in use by Roman cavalry. Its adoption by the infantry came at the same time as a number of other equipment changes in the Roman Army in the Third Century that reflect (i) standardisation of equipment after the state takeover of armaments production, (ii) a need for mass production as the Army greatly increased in size and (most importantly) (iii) changes in tactics in the face of new and more dangerous threats.
What we then see is the Germanics changing from the substantial use of gladii to the widespread use of spathae, following the Roman example.
So the old "barbarisation" thesis gets it backwards - the Germanics adopted the spatha from the Romans, not the other way around.
Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Gunthigg
"HISTORY VS THE DA VINCI CODE" - Facts vs Hype
"ARMARIUM MAGNUM" - Book Reviews on Ancient and Medieval History, Atheism and Philosophy
Under the patronage of Wilpuri. Proud patron of Ringeck.
Re: why was the roman army of the late emprie inferior to that in the early empire (1st century CE)
Hasn't this been done to death already?
Civitate
Re: why was the roman army of the late emprie inferior to that in the early empire (1st century CE)
yep
RESTITVTOR LIBERTATIS ET ROMANAE RELIGIONIS
MINERVAE ET SOLIS INVICTI DISCIPVLVS
formerly known as L.C.Cinna
Senator
Re: why was the roman army of the late emprie inferior to that in the early empire (1st century CE)
Some kid will find RTW in a store somewhere, declare an interest in history, and ask questions like this one.
"Quotation is a serviceable substitute for wit." -Oscar Wilde
Tiro
Re: why was the roman army of the late emprie inferior to that in the early empire (1st century CE)
I thought by the fifth century the western empire was reliant on Foederati.
Laetus
Re: why was the roman army of the late emprie inferior to that in the early empire (1st century CE)
Is that a problem with the military or a problem of the Roman political system, Roman leaders, etc.? As has been quoted many times before, an empire crumbles from within before it falls on the outside (it would be nice to find this actual quote!).
Last edited by Cato_Uticensis; August 11, 2008 at 07:31 PM. Reason: Added a question mark.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
